2022-惇蹋厙AT-1224

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-惇蹋厙AT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the 惇蹋厙AT Statute, 惇蹋厙AT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles＊ were unknown to the 惇蹋厙AT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. 惇蹋厙AT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previously, the Applicant challenged the decision of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) not to reverse its prior recommendation to the Secretary-General to discontinue his partial disability benefit. In Judgment No. 2021-惇蹋厙AT-1106, 惇蹋厙AT affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT＊s Judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2020/091, in which the 惇蹋厙DT dismissed Mr. Giles＊ challenge.

Legal Principle(s)

An application seeking revision of a final judgment of 惇蹋厙AT can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the 惇蹋厙AT Statute. An application for revision is not a substitute for an appeal and no party may seek revision of a judgment merely because he or she is dissatisfied with it and wants to have a second round of litigation.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Howard Andrew Giles

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement